Results 1481 - 1500 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1481 | Christians before Jesus came | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 128615 | ||
Chesed, Without duplicating what EdB and Tim have stated to you, the OT saints were saved the same way we are- by faith in Christ! Heb. 11:13 "All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth." If that was not the case, how could Christ state in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Clearly, the forefathers (patriarchs) looked to Christ by faith. The truth of 1 Cor. 5:7 is applicable to both the OT and NT, "...we walk by faith, not sight". Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1482 | once saved always saved? | Jer 32:40 | BradK | 128583 | ||
armond, I understand the scripture references you gave, but can you explain WHY it is that you feel "The doctrine of eternal savation is a dangerous one indeed.." I don't expect that we'll agree, but I would be interested to know your thoughts :-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1483 | Apocrypha or Dead Sea Scrolls Helpful? | Rom 9:13 | BradK | 128463 | ||
Ted, First, I have to weigh-in in support of both Tim and Searcher on the completeness of scripture. It either stands or falls on it's own-as a whole. Second, your statement that you are "open to the possibilty that some of the apocrapha is actually scripture" is dealing with the question: What is the canon? "The word "canon" means "standard" or "rule." It is the list of authoritative and inspired Scriptures. Different religions have different canons. In Judaism the canon consists of the books of the old Testament only. In Protestant Christianity, the canon is the body of scripture comprised in the Bible consisting of the 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches. The Protestant movement has not accepted the apocrypha. In Mormonism, four additional books have been added to the Canon: The book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In Christian Science an additional book has been added to the Canon. This additional book is called "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" written by Mary Baker Eddy. In Islam, their inspired book is called the Quran." [CARM.org] Can you be a little more specific and provide any other basis for why you "don't think any scriptures in the Bible can be referencing the Bible"? How about Christ's response to Satan in Matthew 4:4ff? Was He not referencing scripture? Simply, we have to be careful about what we "think" as opposed to what scripture says:-) Just out of curiosity, do you believe the statement in 3 Tim. 3:16; "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1484 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | BradK | 128158 | ||
Hello Xerxes, In reference to the first question you pose, I'll answer what is obvious to me: Rev. 1:7 "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen." Further, Matt. 24:30 tells us that: "“And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." As I understand it, Jesus return will be like a thief in the night- it will be sudden and unexpected- as to His coming. However, it will be a visible, personal appearing- every eye will see Him. These verses would appear to argue against it (His return) being done before anyone knew it. In answer to your posit: "Is it possible that He came, and no one documented it because the nature of the return was such that no one but certain elect recognized it for what it was?" I don't see any scriptural warrant to indicate its' possibility. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1485 | Jesus called himself the son of man why? | Matt 16:13 | BradK | 128080 | ||
Norm, Am I reading you right here when you say "God never was and never will be human. God certainly did not die on the cross:" ? Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. The doctrine of the incarnation is central to the Christian faith because it is central to the eternal plan of God. Without this doctrine, Jesus is just another human being; without this doctrine there is no salvation for us in him; and without this doctrine it is wrong for people to worship him. It is a fundamental teaching of the historic Christian faith that God came into this world in mortal flesh to redeem us. The word “incarnation” means “in flesh.” And John declares this truth very early: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:1 and 14). This is how the prophecy of Isaiah about “Immanuel,” God with us,” came about (Isa. 7:14). Paul writes, “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). There was a birth in Bethlehem, but that birth was anything but natural. It was the birth of Jesus, a Jewish man from Galilee; but it was in that birth that God the Son entered the human race. The one born to the virgin Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit; he would be fully human, but he would also be divine--this is his twofold nature. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1486 | Jesus called himself the son of man why? | Matt 16:13 | BradK | 128060 | ||
DBR, You write "Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as angels had previously done; he was not an incarnation but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother". Wrong. Scripture teaches no such thing. Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity had two natures- one Divine, one human. He was and is the eternal Son of God and His nature is fully Divine- Ps. 2:7, Heb.1:5. He was also fully human- 1 Tim. 2:5, 3:16. As to the use of the term "Son of man", Easton's Bible Dictionary comments "In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Saviour. In the Old Testament it is used only in Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13 with this application. It denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body (Heb. 2:14; Luke 24:39) and a rational soul. He was a perfect man." With the "Father-Son " language we have to link this terminology with the claims of Jesus Himself, namely, that He was sent to earth by the Father (John 14:24; John 5:26). Or the claims of those he taught, namely that he is the eternal God who created everything (John 1). And then there is also the hostile witness of his enemies: they sought to kill him because he made himself equal with God (John 5:17). From a human point of view, that is why he died: the charge was blasphemy. Or, study the parable of the vineyard: the owner sent his son to the vineyard, and they killed him (Matt. 21:33-46). Why? Because he was the son. In other words, there would have been no cross without Jesus’ claim to be equal with God the Father and heir of all things. And everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, acknowledges that Jesus was crucified. So the point of Jesus’ use of the “Father-Son” language was meant to teach that he was equal to the Father in nature but subordinated to the Father for the mission. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1487 | From what are we ransomed? | Mark 10:45 | BradK | 127876 | ||
From What are We Ransomed? Easton's Bible Dictionary gives this comment: "Ransom — the price or payment made for our redemption, as when it is said that the Son of man “gave his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; comp. Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:23, 24; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; Gal. 3:13; 4:4, 5: Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19. In all these passages the same idea is expressed). This word is derived from the Fr. rancon; Lat. redemptio. The debt is represented not as cancelled but as fully paid. The slave or captive is not liberated by a mere gratuitous favour, but a ransom price has been paid, in consideration of which he is set free. The original owner receives back his alienated and lost possession because he has bought it back “with a price.” This price or ransom (Gr. lutron) is always said to be Christ, his blood, his death. He secures our redemption by the payment of a ransom. (See REDEMPTION.)" We are Redeemed from the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)by Christ's (payment) death on the cross. "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Eph. 1:7) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1488 | infant death | Is 7:16 | BradK | 127756 | ||
DBR, If I may interject here:-) You still have not addressed the question! What SCRIPTURE tells us that children will be given a second chance? Please provide the EXACT passage and verse. You are continually side-stepping the issue, my friend and wrenching verses out of context to try and make your point:-( Romans 12:1 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the question at hand. Read the CONTEXT! Note: a text without a context is merely a pretext! You state "This is what I feel the scriptures say to me and that it is a logical conclusion to draw, you don’t not have to follow it if that is what you feel." While I can't argue with your "feelings", that is not at all a sound or rational basis for determining Biblical Truth! Opinion or feelings have no place on this Forum and won't gain you any serious audience. May I suggest you respond as requested or drop it. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1489 | Scriptural Support? | Is 7:16 | BradK | 127672 | ||
Hi DBR, Well, if I'm right... then what does that say:-)? I'm not understanding what you mean by "SEEM TO ME to have not only a contextual content but a general content as well." If the CONTEXT is considered, then we can only have one meaning- specific. It can't therefore mean something else- general. There can be but one intended meaning-of the author- of any passage, etc. but there can be more than one application. Bottom line: we either consider and hold to the context, or we don't! Could you clarify what exactly it is you mean? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1490 | infant death | Is 7:16 | BradK | 127653 | ||
DBR, I'm in agreement with Tim and my previous response to one of your other posts in asking, which scripture tells us that ANYONE is ever "brought back and given the opportunity to be able to make it?" This directly contradicts Hebrews 9:27-28 which says; "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." Also, you must not confuse God's Love with His demand for Holiness, Righteousness and Justice. He is a God of Mercy and Love, but also of Holiness, Righteousness and Justice. We- as sinful man- cannot stand in the presence of a Holy and Righteous God on our own merit. We must have forgiveness of (our) sin and be clothed with His Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). Apart from that,we can have no place with Him. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1491 | Scriptural Support? | Is 7:16 | BradK | 127649 | ||
DBR, What is totally missing from your responses to this thread is context. Without attention to context, we just end up playing what I call "spiritual ping-pong". This amounts to tossing verses back and forth to support one's arguement WITHOUT giving any consideration to context. The clear teaching of scripture is that: 1. Heb 9:27 "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,..." 2. 1 Cor. 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,..." Now, you may not agree, however, one of the major tenets of sound Biblical Interpetation is giving due consideration to CONTEXT. Who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and what is being spoken about? This must be understood within the proper context of Book, Chapter, Passage, and Verse. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1492 | Are we gods? | John 10:34 | BradK | 127535 | ||
DBR, I'm not one to argue semantics, so I'm not. What you stated was that "Satan offered Eve the chance to be a Godess". Scripture nowhere says this, my friend! It is speculation since the bible neither says it nor were we there:-) To be "like" something is not the same a being it. A Photograph is a likenes, or representation of the reality it images. It is not the same thing. Further, the Hebrew "tselem" means form, image or likeness. So, I'm not answering my own comment, but rather seeking further clarification from you on what you stated! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1493 | Are we gods? | John 10:34 | BradK | 127527 | ||
DBR, You write that "Satan offered Eve the chance to become a Goddess"? Where does scripture say so? It doesn't. Genesis 3:5 says "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." It's important to say what scripture says, not what we believe it to or want it to say. They were tempted and fell as a result of sin,(vs. 7) believing Satan's lie instead of God's command. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1494 | The Doctrines Please? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 127453 | ||
Forum: First, I will echo my support and stance for EdB on this matter. I say that he has spoken well and to the point. I too would like any "objectors" to state their case in all fairness. Maybe we would all better understand you if you'd take the time to lay out publically what it is you hope to achieve. Hiding behind an agenda serves no true, edifying purpose. It simply will not gain you an audience. To gain respect, you must also show respect. Second, before anyone cries "foul" and claims they're being attacked, called names, etc. please do us the courtesy of not taking offense so personal. Being direct is not necessarily the same as attacking someone or being rude, etc. Don't confuse them. Behave like an adult and learn to deal with disagreement without getting your feathers ruffled:-) Repoire is built over time, not overnight! To be taken seriously, you must show that you deserve to be. Lastly, realize that this is a Public albeit Christian Bible Study Forum. It has certain Doctrinal parameters and posting guidleines. They're there for a good reason and should be adhered to by ALL. Everyone is giving tacit approval to these guidleines when they sign up with an account with Lockman. Actions have consequences- as does every other area in life. And, because this is a public Forum, dialog will entail having your views-good, bad, or indifferent- exposed to open (public) review and criticism! Welcome to life in the Public Domain. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1495 | John8:24 and John8:57-58 | Ex 3:14 | BradK | 127137 | ||
DBR, You've got to be kidding! John 8:58 is one of the clearest examples in scripture referring to the Diety of Christ. The Jews certainly understood Him because they picked up stones... None of the Greek scholars I'm aware of (Roberston, Vincent, Wuest) nor any of the numerous translators of the many fine translations go with "The Being". Only the Jehovah's Witness as far as I know, wrench such a distorted meaning out of the original:-) My friend, Jesus Christ is Lord and the Eternal Son of God , God in the flesh, and Savior. It is to Him that I look for my salvation! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1496 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126768 | ||
Stultis, With all due respect, No, I did not ridicule you or call YOU names! I stand by what I said. What you SAID is and was blasphemous! There is a major difference between attacking a person- which I most certainly did not- and calling a spade a spade! Your statement was appropriately labeled. It is not in accord with orthodox Christianity with regard to the person of Christ. Therefore it is blasphemous. I'm not going to waste my time addressing every point, but to ignore the grammar in interpretation is either ignorant or careless- nothing personal, but a fact. It is not arguing semantics. It goes to the very heart of the matter- sound principles of Biblical interpretation. Words have meaning, and to properly interpret, we must know the exact meaning of those words. No, "My doctrine" is not mine, but that which scripture teaches and has been the foundation of the Historical Christian Church. In all fairness, as you are a newcomer, might you be so kind as to enlighten us as to what your background is and what it is you believe? Are you in agreement with the Lockman Foundation's Doctrinal Statement for starters? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1497 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126749 | ||
Stultis, With respect, I can see that we are getting nowhere, fast! You obviously do not believe the Bible to be the inspired, authoritative, Word of God. You are wrong in a number of points: "We do not "sin because we are sinners." We are created "in the image of God." What is God's image? God is spirit [15:47]." No, The image,(tselem) in Hebrew means form, image, or likeness. We are not created sinless! Only God is without sin, my friend. "We sin because we are tempted" No, again scripture tells us over and over that we are "sinners" (Rom. 3:10-12, 23) , in us is no good thing, our heart is deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9), See Ps. 51:5! Because of Adam we inherit a sinful nature (Rom. 5:9). We're born with it like it or not. That is the teaching of scripture. "Christ came to us in the same corruptable flesh" No, He did not! That is a blasphemous statement and misses the mark. If you read Romans 8:3 CAREFULLY, you'll note that it says "... sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..." Likeness is not the same as "sinful flesh. Christ was God in the flesh, without sin. The Greek, homoioma means that which is made like (something). It carries with it the sense of appearance or form. It does not infer He was sent as a sinful man. You ignore the context as well. You are guilty of ignoring the entire scope of scripture by taking certain, selected texts out of context to prove your point. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1498 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | BradK | 126728 | ||
Yuke, Welcome to the Forum. I'm aware of the "Gap theory", but am mindful that it is just that- a theory. I hasn't been proved to my satisfaction that anything other than the intended, literal reading of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is the case. At any rate, we have no biblical support other than a literal "reading-between-the-lines" to support a Gap theory. Genesis 1:1 does not say that the Earth was created a long time (billions of years) ago, or that 1:3 happened 6,000 years ago. It may be correct, but in all honesty those are conclusions drawn by man, not given by God:-) Out of curiosity, what is your basis for holding to the Gap Theory? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1499 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126718 | ||
Stultis, Two quick points: 1. So you say! You provide no scripture or other biblical basis for your view. Opinion and logic don't necessarily provide a correct understanding:-) 2. The "age-old Original Sin concept" is in fact taught in scripture. Why wouldn't it be? I'm not suggesting anything other that what I believe based on the Bible and the beliefs of the historic Christian Church. See Psalm 51:5. This applies to all of us. We are a fallen race, in need of a Savior. By the way, this is a Study Bible Forum and as such we adhere to the Bible as being inspired and authoritative. WE also hold to the Doctrinal Statement of the Lockman Foundation. Are we on the same page? It appears by your postings that we are not. You might want to consider the posted guidelines for submitting a post to the Forum: "To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts." If you already have, my apology, if not you may run into some challenges, my friend:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1500 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126715 | ||
Stultis, I'm not exactly following your thoughts on this. First, why is it "hermenueticaly sound to compare Paul with Josephus? Second, where does the writer of Hebrews view the literal creation as allegorical? I do not think it "completely unreasonable".. that there is possibility of allegory designed specifically for our understanding. The section of scripture we're referring to is not allegorical and any attempt to render it so is outside of sound principles of Biblical interpretation. We can allegorize anything to death, and any approach to scripture needs to be careful to determine if that (allegorical) interpretation is intended by the writer. In the case of Genesis, it is clearly not historically or otherwise been understood apart from the literal. Josephus was not a believer or an apostle, so I wouldn't expect his view of Genesis to coincide with that of the historical Christian Church. His value is more of an eyewitness and historian than a biblical scholar. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ] Next > Last [97] >> |